Islam Is A Perfect Religion ?

[veesta]

nezhad parasti dar Islam

[Rasputin]

Thx Veesta jan :=) .

[Rasputin]

Is Islam Misrepresented?

By: Amil Imani

Decades ago Marshall Mcluhan observed, "The medium is the message." As the print and electronic media penetrate more and more every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping views and behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On one hand it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation.

Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The public can be deceived more easily by the overlords of the media when political correctness is used as subterfuge for promotion of certain ideas.

A case in point is the media's portrayal of Islam, articulated by politicians and pundits, the talking heads on television and radio, as well as the analysts who write for newspapers and magazines. Time and again we hear and read that Islam is religion of peace, in spite of the fact that Islam has been a religion of violence from its inception to the present. This mantra, "Islam is religion of peace", is repeated so often that it has become an undisputable statement of fact in the minds of many.

Even President George W. Bush on several occasions has repeated the mantra and attributed the horrific violence committed under the banner of Islam to a small band of extremists. The President's assertion is either based on ignorance of the facts about Islam or his attempt at political correctness. Perhaps the President's reticence to speak on the true nature of Islam was due to his desire to avoid inflaming the already charged feelings of many about Islam. In any event, truth is sacrificed and the public continues to cling to the false notion that Islam is a peaceful religion. People who dare to disclose the true nature of Islam run the risk of being castigated as bigots and hatemongers.

Even a cursory examination of Islam's history and Islamic texts conclusively proves the exact opposite of peacefulness. Islam was and continues to be a movement of unbridled violence.

The Arabs who sallied out of the Arabian deserts did not fan out to the outside world with the Quran in one hand and flowers in the other, preaching love and peace from street corner to street corner, thereby capturing the hearts and minds of the people. Islam was forced on every people at the point of the sword and the imposition of backbreaking jazyyeh (special taxes) levied on those who were spared death and allowed to retain their religious beliefs. In spite of paying heavy Jazyyeh, the non-Muslims were treated, at best, as second class citizens in their own homelands.

The abominable persecution of non-Muslims in Islamic countries is a standard operating procedure. In many Islamic countries non-Muslim marriages are not recognized as legal unions and the children of the couples are stigmatized as bastards. Never mind Saudi Arabia, the cradle of barbarism, even Egypt, the more civilized Islamic country and recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. aid, treats non-Muslims as second class citizens and deprives them of their legitimate human rights.

The pundits, the analysts and the politicians are doing a great disservice to the public, each segment for its own expedient reasons, by parroting the mantra regarding the peaceful nature of Islam. As a matter of fact, the so called small band of Islamic extremists is the true face of Islam. Admittedly, from time to time and place to place, Muslims have shown a degree of tolerance for non-Muslims. This tolerance dates back to the very early years of Muhammad himself. Early on Muhammad was meek and proclaimed, "For you, your religion, and for me my religion". This assertion lasted but a few years until Muhammad's movement gathered strength and Islam became the only alternative to death or heavy taxation. The imposition of Jazyyeh was a clever ploy for filling the Islamic coffer to support its armies and to finance its further conquests.

A longstanding Islamic practice is to be meek while weak and assume despotic intolerant power as it gains strength. Recent migration of Muslims to non-Islamic lands began as a seemingly harmless, even useful, trickle of cheap needed labor. Before long, greater and greater numbers of Muslims deluged the new territories and as they gained in numbers -- by high birth rate as well as new arrivals -- Muslims began reverting to their intolerant ways by, for instance, demanding legal status for shariah (Islamic laws). The type of draconian laws that for most parts resemble those of humanity's barbaric past.

Islam is indeed misrepresented. Islam is not misrepresented by its "detractors". It is misrepresented by Islamic mercenaries: organizations and individuals generously funded by states as well as wealthy believers who are making billions of dollars pumping and selling oil at astronomical prices. Prestigious universities in the West, always looking for handouts, are tripping over one another to establish Islamic studies programs staffed by professors who sing the praise of Islam. Newspapers are routinely intimidated by Islamic associations if they dare to print the truth about Islam. Legions of lawyers, both Muslims as well as hired guns, are on the look out to intimidate and silence any voice speaking the truth about Islam. The media that fall in line may receive generous advertising and other incentives from Islamic lobbyists.

Hence, it is a fact that Islam is misrepresented. It is misrepresented very effectively by non-Muslim individuals and institutions who are generously rewarded by the modern day Islamic conquerors. This time around the Muslims are using the immense petrodollar they extract from the addicted non-Muslims. The sword is temporarily replaced by just as deadly a weapon -- the petrodollar. Before long, the Muslims aim to add a more deadly modern version of the sword -- the Islamic bomb. With the bomb in one hand and the other hand on the oil spigot, the non-Muslim world will be brought to its knees by the religion of peace and brotherhood.

[Rasputin]

[khargoosh]

totally agree with rfhr918, good on you

[Rasputin]

The religious brain

Muslims are overwhelmingly born to Muslim parents, Hindus to Hindu parents, Catholics to Catholic parents, and so on. Why?


Our beliefs and ideas make us human, and their quality determines the kind of human we are. We shield and fiercely defend our beliefs and ideas for good reasons: without their integrity and internal harmony, the mind becomes disorganized and even dysfunctional. While our inborn immune system fights off viruses and bacteria that aim to kill us, another immune system, mental immune system -- MIS -- gradually formed after birth, protects the mind and takes every measure to keep the mind's ideas and beliefs on the same page.

Humans are living information machines, receive input from both external sources as well as the body, process it in some fashion, and produce output. From the moment of birth, parents, siblings, and others play pivotal parts in supplying the input and influencing how it is processed.

The raw material for ideas and beliefs reach us through the senses. The brain takes the massive barrage of input and attempts to organize it and incorporate it in an orderly fashion: a monumental task that is taken for granted until something goes seriously wrong. Relatively minor glitches in the working of the mind such as misunderstanding, misperception, and making poor decisions occur daily and may not present serious problems. Over time, however, even these minor glitches in the mind caused by faulty input, poor processing or both can add up and significantly compromise its integrity.

The MIS is not exclusively exclusionary with the sole task of preventing intrusion of the disruptive or undesirable input. It also actively seeks ideas that are harmonious and confirmatory of the ones already in the mind. Through the active admission of the supporting ideas, the MIS reinforces its defenses and reduces its vulnerability.

Given the tabula rasa -- blank slate -- nature of the mind, early input become of paramount importance in determining its further development. It was in recognition of this reality that the famed Behavioral psychologist, J. B. Watson proclaimed:

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select: doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years."

What Watson said may not hold perfectly in every case. Yet, the essence of his boast is indeed supported by numerous studies as well as naturalistic observations. Early environmental influences play the cardinal role in programming the mind -- setting it on its course.

In actuality, the brain seems to say: first come, first served. It is for this reason that Muslims are overwhelmingly born to Muslim parents, Hindus to Hindu parents, Catholics to Catholic parents, and so on. This is not to say that changes, even major changes, are not possible after the early years. They are possible and they do happen in some instances. However, in order for major changes to happen, major re-working must take place in the mind. Change is effortful and the law of conservation of energy also applies to the working of the mind and mitigates change unless the incentives to do so overcomes the default mode of inertia.

The parents, other adults and children, as well as the prevailing culture are powerful teachers and trainers of the young mind. In the Islamic world, Islam permeates every aspect of life with overbearing severity. The young mind has virtually little access to competing non-Islamic input. As the child's foundation of belief forms, the MIS works to protect it, further reinforce it, and bar, falsify, or dismiss any ideas that may clash with the mind's already in-place contents.

As humans, we lack pre-programmed software instincts to direct us in life. We, however, are born with pre-dispositions -- rudiments of software programs that will be further elaborated in interaction with life. We are, therefore, importantly dependent on how we and others, and in what fashion, further elaborate the rudimentary software. Somehow, there has been a trade-off. As our brain evolved both in size and power, what little instincts we may have had gave way. In a real sense, we took charge of our own destiny.

Science is learning more and more about the brain/mind, considered by many experts as the most complex and enigmatic entity in the universe. With each passing day, another piece of the brain/mind puzzle falls in place. Just recently psychologist Drew Western and his team at Emory University used MRI -- functional magnetic resonance imaging -- on 15 strong Republicans and 15 staunch Democrats to literally pinpoint the parts of the brain involved in what is called "confirmation bias," the lead faculty of the MIS.

The participants were asked to evaluate statements by George W. Bush and John Kerry where the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. The researchers found that the Republicans were as critical of John Kerry as the Democrat were of George W. Bush, while both fiercely defended their respective political comrade.

The surprising part of the study is that while the confirmation bias was at work, the brain areas ordinarily associated with rational decision-making were inactive. By contrast, an elaborate network of brain structures that process emotion and conflicts were highly activated. In short, confirmation bias has its own brain resources that shunt out the reasoning parts in order to protect the already in-place beliefs and preferences.

The confirmation bias, the mainstay of the MIS protects beliefs values and ideas, be they political, religious, or of any other type; it is also helped in the discharge of its functions by the mind's defense mechanisms such as rationalization (faulty reasoning) and denial (refusing to accept the reality of the irrefutable). Allocation of extensive faculties of the brain to content protection demonstrates the critical importance of safeguarding the mind's contents to its normal functioning.

It is important to keep in mind that rationality is not the master faculty of the brain. Emotions also play major parts in even tasks that are ordinarily thought to be in purview of rationality, particularly when one's beliefs, values, and ideas are at stake. Much of the work of the MIS is done without the person himself being fully aware of it. The confirmation bias seems to be almost automatic and autonomous -- a first line of defense against unwelcome intruders and a means of summoning other resource of the mind to defeat the unwelcome invaders.

[Rasputin]

The MIS is not strictly static and defensive. As it protects what is in-place, it also actively seeks to expand the prowess of the mind by incorporating new knowledge -- preferring the kind of knowledge that does not conflict with the body of information already at hand. This necessary openness feature of the MIS makes it susceptible to invasion by some disharmonious input that creates conflicts in the mind and presents the risk of paralyzing or seriously compromising its functioning. "Beliefs" can be thought of as the main framework of the mind while "ideas" are the minor components that connect the grid-work together.

Total or major replacement of beliefs, particularly as one gets older, becomes less likely, yet it happens occasionally. Paul's sudden transformation from a rabid Christian-persecutor to a devote believer of the faith of Christ is a familiar instance of such a drastic change. Ideas, on the other hand, are much more amenable to change, replacement or discard as long as they do not substantially undermine the integrity of the main framework -- the belief.

Lacking pre-programs to negotiate life, makes the person his own boss and compass. Being one's own boss is a mixed blessing. The boss has to make decisions, many with serious implications, and accept responsibility for all outcomes. That's what the mind has to do at all time.

Faced with difficult decisions, conflicting ideas and demands they are not equipped to address, people may resort to a variety of alternatives such as "regression" (acting child-like) to absolve themselves of the responsibility of deciding and acting on their own. People, therefore, are often willing to let someone else do the thinking, deciding and acting for them. In the case of regression caused by the stress of the inability to cope, the person reverts to the time that the parents handled those chores.

It is in this vein that some people wish to go back, figuratively, to the primordial time -- the time that perhaps our life was steered primarily by reflexes and instincts and the conscious volitional brain played only minor roles. For this reason, there is a great deal of appeal to surrender the brain to another -- a substitute for the instincts we lack. By so doing, we would be largely freed from the often daunting task of having to make critical decisions ourselves. That external brain can present itself as a leader, a prophet of God, or a charlatan.

We like to think of ourselves as rational beings. Yet, our rational nature is only one part of the brain/mind enigma. We are also emotional beings. We tend to favor our rational side, because it is generally fact-based, orderly and leaves little room for uncertainty -- all importantly operative components of our emotional nature.

Religious belief is primarily emotionally based. There is no way of rationally proving or disproving religious faith. Faith and reasons are not the same. "Fore the core of religious faith is that mystic feeling which unites man with God," a religious luminary has proclaimed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with religion. Religion can be a tremendous force for the good. However, when religion, this feeling-based belief, is filled with superstition, intolerance and hatred, then the beholder of that religion embodies those qualities and becomes a veritable menace to himself and to others. Feelings energize actions. Destructive feelings energize destructive actions.

Muslims are victims of their religious brains: their religious brains are indoctrinated, from the moment of birth, by an extensive ruthless in-power cadre of self-serving mullahs and imams who are intent at maintaining their stranglehold on the rank and file of the faithful -- their very source of support and livelihood.

The mullahs and imams, as well as parents and others envelope the receptive mind, feed it their dogma, and shield it from information that may undermine or falsify their version of belief.

For as long as there are bigoted, self-serving clergy and their collaborators with first exclusive access to the blank slate, the problem of supplying wave after wave of Islamofascists will persist. It is the brain/mind that assesses things, makes decisions, and orders actions. To the extent that the in-place software of the religious brain is exclusionary in nature, hateful in orientation, and violent in tendency, to that extent the individual is both the perpetrator and the victim of barbaric acts.

The surest way of dealing with Muslims, Islam, and Islamofascism is through effective inculcation of a religious software that promotes tolerance of diversity, freedom of faith and conscious, goodwill to all, as well as purging of all the vile and discriminatory dogma that permeates the out-dated primitive belief of some 1400 years ago barbarians. The best place to start is clearly the home, then schools, and mosques where the deeply-entrenched mullahs and imams of vested interest must be compelled by law to refrain from preaching messages of hate and violence against the unbelievers.

Perhaps free societies should constitute a diverse panel of citizens to scrutinize all religious teachings and screen the software programs for destructive viruses. Once these viruses are introduced into the mind, clearing them, as we said before, becomes difficult if not impossible.

A religious brain programmed by the message of justice, love and respect for all is bliss, while the discriminatory, hateful, and violent religious brain is curse.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

Considering the colonial factor as a cause of backwardness, we will see that some non-Islamic countries, like India or China, are not bogged in their colonial backwardness. We can realise that the backwardness of the Islamic world is not only imposed by the factor of several decades of colonial powers, but rather and more destructive by many centuries of religious burden. Actually, the development of these countries was not only disturbed by colonial exploiters, but prior to them, it was barred by religion. The religion, as a heavy social ailment, has avoided any increase in productivity and national economy-- unless in traditional small-scale production and contribution of basic consumer goods.

Because of the long period of religious obscurity, no Islamic society was in the position to leave behind the obstacles of traditional backwardness. It is an important fact that has even been ignored by the Iranian left. Marx once believed that religion belonged to a category of superstructures when the Renaissance had already achieved in Europe. However, at least in the case of Islam, religion is not an ever neutral superstructure. On the contrary, Islam has been a solid foundation on which the means of production and social activities of economy are traditionally based. Under the restrictions of Islam, the democratic and secular conditions needed to advance the economy of the society can never be achieved.

The conspicuous fact is, the more an Islamic society is bogged in its religion, and the more it is trapped in a vicious cycle of illiteracy, poverty, backwardness, misogyny and violence. Islamists continue to blame non-Muslims for all failures of the Islamic world. This is an old and routine pretext represented by some paranoid Al-Ahmad and his likes. All those Muslims, who perceive democracy and secularism as ideas of foreign dominance, who blame outsiders, “infidels” for all the ills of the society, should know that the main cause of the ills come from the core of Islam itself.

Utopia and hypocrisy aside, there is no real bridge linking the obscure values of Islam with democracy. It is an absurdity to combine these two opposite words “Islam” and “democracy”. If the Islamic societies were to be reconciled with democracy, the restoration of religion to the sphere of social life would have no sense. In fact democratic de-islamisation is to push back the religion in its confined privacy. This is the basic stipulation that must be accepted in order to start becoming adaptive to democracy.

Political Islam, by extension, refers to an emotional self-acceptance of Islam. It is not based on a simple analysis of objective needs of people. Both the objective needs and proven advantages of Islam are not presented. However, both fundamentalist and alleviated followers of political Islam differently but stubbornly deny the fact that Islam is the main factor of the existing backwardness in the Islamic world.

Instead of attaching to archaic norms, Islamic societies must take on board the values of secularist-humanist principles on which the modernity is based. If Iranian Muslim activists organised in groups or not, want to render a service to their society by incorporating evolutionary ideas, they should leave the political arena for the secular activists. Nobody can save Islam without further victimising the whole Iranian society.

A democracy cannot survive long without the values of secularism; the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to criticise and offend taboo values. Democracy is an illusion when is under any form of political Islam, and of course without a real democracy, Islam will remain intact in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress. Without vital democracy, Islam will continue stifling thought, human rights, freedom and progress.

Democracy is a heritage of social evolution. In our epoch, it evolves with the values of secularism. Religion, especially Islam, is a steady load for democracy. Iran will never be free with wooly interpretations of democracy. Iranian democrats should defend democracy or it will die from hypocritical abuses, as it was the case of ex-communist regimes, under the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of “class” democracy or, more illusionary, under the claim of Islamic democracy.

Democracy is much needed in the Islamic world, but of course without “Islam” attached to it. Iranian Muslim activists who have not been involved in the Islamist crimes, and are disillusioned by the IRI, should open their ears and eyes to finally quit the dogma that their Islam is a fixed and firmly miracle of any problem. On the contrary, the most frequent facts show that Islam has enough damaged our society. Today, to free and moderniseIran, political Islam, as a doctrine for undemocratic and backward principles, under any interpretation cannot be held at all.

[Rasputin]

Rewarding disobedient wives

Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa that it is legitimate for men to beat their disobedient wives. Shirazi wrote on his website: "The Koran first recommends a man to try and convince his wife to obey him in a polite way and through advice, and then by refusing to have sexual relations with her. Finally, if all these fail to make her come to her senses, proceed with physical punishment."

Did I hear the Grand Ayatollah suggesting that as a form of punishment a man should refuse to have sexual relations with his wife? Are you kidding me? That's not a punishment, that's a reward. How many wives do you know that actually enjoy having sexual relations with their husbands? When was the last time you saw a wife crying her heart out because her 250-lbs hairy husband refused to have sex with her? So, you're telling me that a wife who will not have to fondle her husband's sweaty balls is being punished? I think not.

Another thing I'm confused about is at what point do I stop refusing sexual relations with the wife and move on to knocking the crap out of her? Is it two weeks? Two months? Two years? Additionally, am I allowed to have sexual relations with other men's wives while punishing my own by refusing her the Tower of Power? (Or is it the Thunder Down Under? I forget.) Can't I just skip the part about refusing sexual relations and move directly to the beating? Just a thought. Furthermore, does a quickie count?

Well, I gotta go before my wife catches me writing this stuff and beats the s*** out of me.

By S Baniameri

[mike435]

the coment above is comical

yuo know why islam has such a bad rep is becuase it condems intellectuals
unlike other religions it dosent let chalanges or objections to arise
this is all the while that is the only major relligion that aknolwedges the excistance of other belifes

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

May peace be upon you

Islam has spawned many sects that are master practitioners of the art of double standards. As far as Muslims are concerned what is good for Muslims is not good for the non-Muslims; and, what is bad for Muslims is good for non-Muslims.

What complicates matters is that there is no way of knowing which of the dozens of at-each-other's-throat sects is the legitimate Islam. As sooner as Muhammad died his religion of peace became a house of internal war: jockeying for power and leadership started, sects formed and splintered into sub-sects, and bloodletting began in earnest.

The internal infighting in Islam is presently playing in full color -- in red -- most dramatically, in the Iraqi theater. Shiite raid Sunni civilians, slaughter them like sheep, and toss their bodies like trash in the streets or the rivers. The Sunnis return the favor with just as much viciousness and savagery.

Question: if this is the way these Muslims treat each other, how would they deal with the infidels, when they have the chance?

Answer: these devoted followers of Muhammad would deal with the infidels exactly the way Muhammad did: behead the non-believers, take them as slave to hold or sell, or make them pay back-breaking jazyyeh -- pole taxes.

Some may objects that writings like this are little more than hatemongering and fanning the fire that rages between Islam and the non-Islamic world. They may further flash the Islamic apologists' few well-worn-out propaganda cards as evidence for their contention that Islam is not what its detractors claim.

Here are the few favorite cards:

* There is no compulsion in religion says the Quran -- the full context is never shown.
* "Islam," means "Peace," so Islam is religion of peace.
* "For you, your religion, and for me, my religion," Muhammad reportedly has said.

The Muslims and their apologists quickly run out of their few cards and the rest of the Islamic deck is all about intolerance, hatred, and violence toward the infidels and all others who are not true Muslims, even toward those who consider themselves as Muslims. Shiites, for instance, judge the Sunnis as traitors to Islam and Sunnis condemn the Shiites as heretics. Each side deems the other worthy of death and hellfire.

This internecine Islamic war of the religion of peace is not confined to the Shiite-Sunni divide. There are so many internal divisions within each side that listing and describing them comprehensively would be encyclopedic.

So, who is right? What are the facts about Islam and how does Islam impact the ever-shrinking village earth and its inhabitants? Admittedly, this is a huge question and cannot be answered satisfactorily in one article. However, some facts can be presented to help the reader decide.

There is no need to belabor the point that Islam is not and has never been a religion of peace. The word "Islam," is derived from "taslim," which means "submission," while the term for "peace," is "Solh." Another derivation of the word "taslim," is "salamat" which means "good health," and so on.

Irrespective of what the term "Islam" may mean, the facts on the ground conclusively demonstrate Islam's violent nature from its very inception. No need to go back to the time of Muhammad and examine the historical records. Just a few from contemporary events should make the point.

Here is a partial list: the savage Shiites-Sunnis bloodletting in Iraq; the barbarism of the resurging Taliban in Afghanistan; the genocide in Sudan's Darfur; the Somalis killings; the Iranian mullahs murder of their own people and support of mischief abroad; the cross-border attack on Israel by Lebanese Hizbollah; the incessant terrorist acts of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatwa of the Palestinians against Israel; the bombing of Shiites mosques in Pakistan and the Shiites retaliation against easy innocent civilian targets.

Clearly, there is no place on the planet where Muslims reside that is in peace from the religion of peace. Spain, France, Holland, England Thailand, and Indonesia, have already been attacked while others such as Belgium have been threatened and sanctioned.

Stretching the benefit of the doubt beyond limits, one may believe that all these acts of horrors are committed by a small minority of thugs and radicals who happened to be Muslims.

Fine, let us ignore all those "fringes" for now: those who are giving Islam a bad reputation. And never mind Saudi Arabia, the cradle of barbarism fixed in formaldehyde since Islam's inception. Also, let us overlook the dastardly Shiite fanatics presently ruling (ruining) a great nation of Iran. Iran Shiite Hitlerists are hell-bent on wiping Israel off the face of the planet while viciously devastating Iran's own largest minority -- the Bahais; the people universally-recognized as law-abiding and peaceful.

Would someone account for what is happening in the "civilized" Islamic country of Egypt? The world owes Egypt a debt of gratitude for giving it the Muslims Brotherhood -- the lead promoter of Sunni hatred toward the infidels with chapters and front organizations in much of the world. With typical Islamic hypocrisy, the Egyptian government claims that the Muslims Brotherhood is outlawed, when in actuality the Brotherhood holds twenty-five percent of the seats in the Egyptian parliament. The same country that gave the world vicious American killers like Al Zawahiri is the recipient of huge largess from the American taxpayer.

And the latest shameful action of the Egyptian government is the issuance of identity cards that requires listing of one's religion. In order to be issued an ID card which is essential for just about any and all exercises of the rights of citizenship, the individual must list his religion as one of the three sanctioned faith: Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. No one is allowed to leave the religious affiliation blank or list any other religion. Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais or agnostics and atheists have to either lie and fake a religious affiliation or run the serious risk of having to survive as non-entities in the "crown jewel" of modern and moderate Islamic society.

These are the conditions on the ground wherever Islam rules. Violence of all forms is endemic to Islam and is not confined to any fringes. Islam itself is the fringe. A fringe that is oppressive, hateful of others and violent to the core.

The world must confront Islam and demand that it mends its ways in conformity with the Bill of Rights, where every man, woman, and child is fully entitled to equal treatment under the law, irrespective of any and all considerations.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

هيچ موضوعی به اندازه مسأله زن برای اسلام امروز دردسر نساخته است. مسلمان*ها با انواع و اقسام نظام*های اقتصادی کنار آمده*اند، وارد مبادلات پيچيده مالی و پولی با دارالکفر شده*اند و همين*طور از آخرين دستاوردهای تکنولوژيک غرب بهره می*گيرند. به هيچ جای اسلام*شان هم برنمی*خورد. برای استبدادشان از اسلام حجت می*آورند و برای دموکراسی دينی*شان هم در فقه نوانديشی می*کنند و روشنفکران دينی را به ميدان می*فرستند. خيلی از احکام فقهی را هم به راحتی می*توانند وانهند. اگر فشارهای بين المللی افزايش پيدا کند در عربستان و ايران اجرای حدود در ملأ عام می*تواند متوقف شود. می*شود بسياری از احکام فقهی را عمل نکرد و شريعت را نوسازی کرد و در عين حال به سنت دينی وفادار ماند. به سخن ديگر بسياری از گزاره*های دينی را به خطا يا صواب می*شود تأويل*های امروزی کرد. اما يک مسأله هست که به هيچ روی تأويل*پذير نيست: آزادی زن.

آزادی زن يعنی آزادی تن او، احترام به حقوق انسانی و حذف هرگونه تبعيض درباره وی. اگر مسلمانان آزادی زن را به اين معنا بپذيرند، ديگر هيچ چيز از شريعت*شان باقی نمی*ماند. يعنی اگر فقيهی بگويد زن حق دارد خود را بپوشد يا نپوشد و در حقوق ديگر مانند مرد است، ديگر دليلی وجود ندارد با همان روشی که اين گزاره*ها را صادر می*کند، ديگر احکام عقود و ايقاعات و معاملات و حدود و قصاص و بسياری از احکام عبادات را هم ملغی اعلام نکند. همه اقتدار فقيهان از قدرتی می*آيد که بر زنان اعمال می*کنند. فقيهان در برابر مسأله زنان مقاومت می*کنند زيرا می*دانند که اگر صلاحيت آن*ها برای اظهارنظر درباره مسأله زن نفی شود، ديگر هيچ گونه اقتداری نخواهند داشت. حرکت بنيادگرايان و زنان در دو سوی معکوس است. بنيادگرايان و سنت*گرايان می*گويند اسلام در طول تاريخ تحريف شده و تغيير پيدا کرده است؛ در حالی که اسلام ناب و الگوی ايده*آل همان اسلام پيامبر و خلفای راشدين (برای اهل سنت) و امامان (برای شيعه) است. پس بايد به اسلام نخستين بازگشت؛همان اسلام قرون اوليه هجری که پاک و منزه است. اکنون می*خواهم با آوردن نمونه*هايی نشان دهم که اسلام اوليه بسی سکس*انديش*تر و از نظر حيات جنسی بازتر از اسلام قرون متأخر بوده است. در حقيقت می*خواهم منش غيرتاريخی تفسيرهای سنت*گرايانه و نيز بسياری از برداشت*های روشنفکران را از اسلام آشکار کنم.

پيش از هر چيز ديگر بر اين نکته تصريح می*کنم که در ميان کتاب*های آسمانی که من می*شناسم هيچ کتابی به اندازه قرآن اروتيک نيست. وعده*های بهشت متمرکز است بر آميزش جنسی با حورالعين و نيز پسربچه*ها (غلمان). چشم و ابرو و اندامی که از زنان بهشتی در قرآن توصيف شده، چقدر می*توانسته برای اعراب جزيره العرب هوس*انگيز و اشتهاآور باشد. (در اين باره به خصوص به دو کتاب از ابراهيم محمود پژوهشگر عرب بنگريد که هر دو را انتشارات رياض الريّس در بيروت چاپ کرده است: جغرافيای لذت*ها در قرآن (جغرافيه الملذات فی القرآن) و سکس و قرآن (الجنس و القرآن). در قرآن آيه*ای هست درباره آميزش جنسی با زنان از پشت (Anal sex) که تفسيرهای مفصلی از آن شده است: نساءکم حرث لکم، فأتوا حرثکم انی شئتم، يعنی زنان*تان کشتزارهای شما هستند؛ از هر سو که خواهيد به کشتزارتان درآييد.

فقيهان بسياری معتقدند که حکم جواز دخول در دُبُر زن (Anal sex) را از اين آيه میتوان استنباط کرد. فقيهان ديگری هم هستند که به کراهت شديد آن باور دارند. اقليتی هم به حرمت آن فتوا داده*اند. خود داستان يوسف و زليخا هم آن*اندازه به چشم فقيهان اروتيک به نظر می*آمده که روايتی از امامان آورده*اند که زنان را از خواندن سوره يوسف بازداريد و در عوض آن*ها را به خواندن سوره نور (به خاطر آيات حجاب) واداريد. در قرآن لذت جنسی يکی از برترين لذت*های اين جهان و آن جهان شمرده شده است. از روايت*ها و حديث*ها چيزی نمی*گويم که مدار اغلب آن*ها بر محور جنبه اروتيک زن است و به زن به چشم يکابزار جنسی نگاه می*شود. احکام مختلفی هم که برای زن صادر شده مبتنی بر همين برداشت جنسی از زن است. محققان عرب مجموعه روايات اسلامی را درباره زن به طور مستقل گردآورده و چاپ کرده*اند که اميدوارم روزی به فارسی ترجمه شود. همه اين*ها نشان می*دهد که جامعه پيامبر جامعه*ای است به شدت دل*مشغول به سکس، به اين معنا که سکس از طبيعی*ترين و غريزی*ترين فعاليت*های آدمی قلمداد می*شده است.

پيش از اسلام در جزيرة العرب هجده نوع ازدواج وجود داشته است، از جمله اين شيوه که اگر زنی هوس خوابيدن با مردی را داشت، بر سر در خانه*اش پارچه قرمزی می*آويخت و مردان با اين نشانه به سراغش می*آمدند و زن با هر کدام که می*پسنديد می*خوابيد. با پژوهش*های صورت*گرفته معلوم شده است که زنان پيش از اسلام و در دوره پيش از مدينه*ی پيامبر آزادی جنسی حيرت*انگيزی داشته*اند. بيهوده نبود که وقتی پيامبر درگذشت، زنان اشراف مدينه در روستايی در اطراف شهر گردآمدند و جشن و پايکوبی به راه انداختند. ابوبکر آنان را روسپی خواند اما تاريخ*نگاران امروزی اسلام ثابت کرده*اند که آنها نمی*توانسته*اند کسانی جز اشراف باشند (نگاه کنيد به نوشته*های پر اهميت فاطمه مرنيسی، پژوهش*گر پرآوازه مغربی). پژوهش*گری نامدار به نام خليل عبدالکريم در مصر مجموعه ها یی از تحقيقات و کاوشهای بديع صورت داده، از جمله درباره زن در اسلام. جدا از کتاب سه جلدی مهم*اش شدو الربابه فی احوال الصحابه (نواختن رباب، رسالهای درباره ياران پيامبر) و نيز العرب و المرأه ( عربان و زن، رسالهای زبانشناختی و تاريخی درباره بينش عربان قديم به زن) کتاب مهمی دارد با عنوان دراز مجتمع يثرب، علاقة الرجل و المرأة فی العهد المحمدی و الخليفی، نساءکم حرثٌ لکم، فأتوا حرثَکم اَنّی شئتم (جامعه يثرب، روابط ميان زن و مرد در عهد محمد و خليفه*ها، زنان شما کشتزارهای شمايند، در کشتزارهاتان درآييد از هر جا که خواهيد). خليل عبدالکريم در اين کتاب کوچک تنها بر روايتهايی تکيه کرده که از نظر سند، هيچ فقيهی در گذشته و اکنون نمی*تواند در صحت آن ترديد کند. نويسنده کتاب تلاش کرده تصويری از جامعه يثرب دوران پيامبر و نيز دوران ابوبکر و عمر به دست دهد، از معبر حيات جنسی آن جامعه. عبدالکريم نشان می*دهد که چگونه پيامبر با وضع قوانينی درباره زندگی جنسی، مشکلات سختی با زنان داشته و نيز چگونه از اين راه جامعه يثرب را به مدينة النبی تبديل کرده است. جدا از مسأله روان*شناسی خود پيامبر که مردی زن*دوست و زن*باره بود، وضع قوانين برای محدود کردن فعاليت جنسی عرب*ها ، هدف اصلی و نخست پيامبر نبود. بعدها و به تدريج پيامبر دريافت که برای پيش بردن دعوتش ، بايد فعاليت جنسی هوادارانش تحت قوانين تازه*ای درآيد و محدود شود. از جمله حکم زنا ( در آغاز حبس در خانه و بعد سنگسار) در اسلام وجود نداشت تا زمانی که پيامبر رشته جنگ*هايی را با مخالفان خود به راه انداخت. پيامبر در اين غزوات و سَريّه*ها ناگزير بود مردان جوان مدينه را گردآورد و به جبهه بفرستد. پس از چند جنگ، زنان به تنگ آمدند. در همين کتاب بر پايه روايتی، آمده که زنی در کوچه*های مدينه به راه افتاد و فرياد می*زد که آيا مردی در شهر باقی مانده تا با من بخوابد؟

آزادی زنان در ابراز ميل جنسی*شان باعث شد که انگيزه مردان برای رفتن به جبهه تضعيف شود و بترسند از اين که زنان*شان را از دست بدهند. حکم زنا صادر شد آن هم با چه مشقت*هايی که پيامبر برای صدور و اجرای آن داشت. فاطمه مرنيسی که نوشته*های وی به زبان*های مختلف منتشر شده، در کتاب سکس و هندسه اجتماعی بر پايه مقايسه*ای ميان فرويد و غزالی نشان داده که اساساً تصوير اسلام از زن با تصوير مسيحيت تفاوت بنيادی دارد. در اسلام ، زن، از نظر جنسی، اندام و روانی فعال دارد و به همين سبب، مايه فتنه مردان انگاشته می*شود و بر اساس روايتی از امامان شيعه مهم*ترين لشگر شيطان است. خليل عبدالکريم در نوشته خود نشان میدهد که پيامبر به رغم تلاش*های بسيارش، می*کوشيد فقط تا آن*جا که به دعوتش آسيب وارد می*شود حيات جنسی پيروانش را محدود کند، چون نه خودش به چنين محدوديتی اعتقاد داشت و نه امکان اعمال چنين محدوديتی در چنان جامعه*ای وجود داشت.